State of New York

Offices of the Inspector General

Investigation of Robert Freeman,

Former Executive Director
of the New York State
Committee on Open Government

November 2019

Letizia Tagliafierro
Inspector General
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 13, 2019, the Offices of the New York State Inspector General received a
detailed written complaint from a female newspaper reporter alleging that Robert Freeman, then
the executive director of the State’s Committee on Open Government, “sexually assaulted” her
while meeting with her in his official capacity.

In subsequent sworn testimony to the Inspector General, the complainant described

unwanted physical contact by Freeman during a May 23, 2019 meeting she had with him to
discuss New York State Public Officers Law provisions relating to open meetings. The
complainant testified that during and immediately after the meeting, Freeman engaged in
conduct that included squeezing her shoulder; touching her waist, back, and buttocks with his
hand; parting her braids from her face and placing them behind her shoulder; hugging her; and
kissing her on her cheek while holding her head. The complainant also described very personal
and inappropriate statements made by Freeman to her at this meeting, which included gender-
and racially based derogatory comments that were made while Freeman repeatedly looked at her
chest. The Inspector General’s investigation found compelling evidence that Freeman acted in a
sexually inappropriate manner towards the complainant while meeting with her in his official
capacity.

During the course of the Inspector General’s investigation, a review of Freeman’s work
emails revealed his repeated inappropriate use of State resources. Specifically, this review found
that Freeman used his work email account to improperly communicate with a woman he had met
as part of his official duties. This series of sexually suggestive emails from October 2018
through June 2019 included provocative photographic images sent by the woman to Freeman.

Additionally, a forensic computer analysis of Freeman’s work computer revealed several

image files of naked women and hundreds of image files depicting scantily clad women, all
likely obtained through the internet. Moreover, the New York State Office of Information
Technology Services, which is responsible for the Committee on Open Government’s computer
systems, twice a year removed and reinstalled all software on Freeman’s work computer because
its operating system had become plagued with viruses and other malicious software. Although
such viruses can be indicative of improper computer internet usage and subject the computer
network to vulnerabilities, the Office of Information Technology Services took no action to
address this.
1
 Further, the investigation found that the New York Department of State, in which the
Committee on Open Government is housed, was aware of and had acted against Freeman for
prior incidents of inappropriate conduct toward women. Specifically, the investigation found
that the Department of State verbally admonished Freeman in 2003 after a coworker complained
that Freeman had kissed her while the two were in a hotel lobby on a business trip. And in 2013,
Freeman was investigated by the Department of State for claims of inappropriate behavior in the
workplace towards several female department employees. According to personnel records of the
2013 investigation, one employee alleged Freeman sat on her desk while ogling her; another
claimed he frequently stood uncomfortably close to her and said she was “cute” and “attractive”;
and two others alleged Freeman ran his hand along their arm or shoulder, thrusted his pelvic area
toward them, and asked if they worked out. As a result of the investigation, Freeman received a
counseling memorandum and, as directed, attended additional sexual harassment prevention and
equal employment opportunity training with the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations. As
noted in the counseling memorandum, the department reissued Freeman a copy of the agency’s
policy on sexual harassment and informed him that “failure to adhere to this policy, the
conditions of this memorandum, or the development of related issues will lead to more serious
corrective action up to and including termination.”

In sworn testimony to the Inspector General on June 24, 2019, Freeman admitted meeting
with and kissing the female reporter at a diner on May 23, 2019. Additionally, he admitted using
his work email system to exchange emails with and receive sexually suggestive photographic
images from a woman he met while presenting at a university in his official capacity. Freeman
also acknowledged that he had viewed a number of sexually explicit images on his work
computer via the internet.

On June 24, 2019, the Inspector General referred these findings to the Department of
State, which terminated Freeman’s employment that day.

In the aftermath of Freeman’s termination, which was widely reported in the media,
numerous additional allegations surfaced regarding Freeman’s conduct toward members of the
media as well as State and local government employees. Several newspapers published
reporters’ accounts of their uncomfortable encounters with Freeman that exhibited common
themes. One newspaper published a letter that its news director had sent to Freeman in March
2015 to express disapproval of the nature of Freeman’s communication with a young female

2
reporter at the newspaper. The Inspector General was also contacted by State and local
government employees about their alleged encounters with Freeman, which had never been
reported before. In total, the Inspector General interviewed 14 individuals who claimed Freeman
engaged in inappropriate conduct toward them.

The Inspector General found that Freeman habitually engaged in sexual harassment of
multiple women over many years. Given the stature Freeman attained during his tenure as
executive director, his role as the sole authority on government transparency, and the power
dynamic he repeatedly promoted, many of the women who spoke with the Inspector General said
they believed it would be futile to report his misconduct.

The Inspector General’s investigation also revealed that Freeman—despite his

inappropriate conduct being known by many news media outlets—continued to be a frequent
source for these media outlets, some of which did not report or directly address his misconduct.
Indeed, prior to Freeman’s June 2019 termination, the only documented complaints from the
news media were the 2015 news director’s letter, which was sent directly to Freeman, and the
complaint filed by an employee of a media outlet with the Inspector General in June 2019.

The Inspector General referred evidence obtained in this investigation to prosecutorial

authorities for consideration.

In light of these findings, the Inspector General recommends that employers, both public
and private, disseminate and clarify sexual harassment reporting options involving a State actor.
State employees who encounter sexual harassment related to their employment should contact
the agency’s affirmative action officer, who reports to the Governor’s Office of Employee
Relations, an entity independent from the employee’s agency.1 Private sector complainants
unsure where to file a complaint against a State actor may submit such complaints to the
Inspector General, which will handle or refer it to the appropriate entity.

Given that the Office of Information Technology Services failed to act on evidence that
Freeman misused his computer, the Inspector General recommends that it promulgate policies

1
9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 4.19 (1983). On January 1, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 2
reissuing Executive Order No. 19, which established the State policy on sexual harassment in the workplace.
Executive Order No 19 was issued by Gov. Mario M. Cuomo on May 31, 1983.
3
and procedures for reporting suspected abuse of agency computer resources, disseminate these
new policies and procedures to staff, and train on the same.

The findings of this investigation illustrate Freeman’s continual abuse of his official
position. As such, this report was provided to the New York State Joint Commission on Public
Ethics for its review of possible violations of New York State Public Officers Law’s Code of
Conduct and provisions governing the use of State resources.

ALLEGATION
On June 13, 2019, the Inspector General received a complaint alleging that Robert
Freeman, then the executive director of the Committee on Open Government, “sexually
assaulted” a young female newspaper reporter while meeting with her in his official capacity.
Specifically, in a detailed, lengthy written statement, the reporter alleged unwanted contact by
Freeman during a work meeting on May 23, 2019, which included squeezing her shoulder,
putting his arm on her waist, touching her buttocks with his hand, placing her braids behind her
shoulder, hugging her, and kissing her. The reporter also alleged that Freeman engaged in very
personal and inappropriate conversation with her during this meeting and made gender- and
racially based derogatory statements toward her while constantly looking at her chest. In
addition, the reporter alleged that during this meeting, Freeman bragged about his salary and
work status, commenting that he is his own boss and “no one is above him.” Upon receipt of this
allegation, the Inspector General immediately commenced an investigation into Freeman’s
conduct.

BACKGROUND
New York State Sexual Harassment Policy
Sexual harassment in the workplace, a form of gender-based discrimination, involves
unwelcome sexual conduct that is used as the basis for employment decisions or creates an
intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment, which may be verbal,
visual, or physical, includes such actions as comments about a person’s gender or sexual
preferences, sexually offensive remarks, and unwanted touching or groping, among other
actions. Sexual harassment can also occur outside the workplace. Sexual harassment is
prohibited by Title VII of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act, New York State Human Rights Law
and, in some instances, local law.

4
 Under the prior New York State standard, harassment was illegal when it was so “severe
or pervasive” that it resulted in an adverse employment decision or created a hostile or offensive
work environment. Effective October 11, 2019, new anti-discrimination legislation modified this
standard by eliminating the “severe or pervasive” requirement. Additional new workplace
harassment protections signed into law include:

• All nondisclosure agreements in employment contracts must include language

stating that employees may still file a complaint of harassment or
discrimination with a state or local agency and testify or participate in a
government investigation.
• The statute of limitations to file a sexual harassment claim with the New York
State Division of Human Rights will be increased from one to three years.
• Employers must provide employees with notice about their sexual harassment
prevention policy in English as well as the employee's primary language
• The New York State Human Rights Law applies to all employers in the state,
providing protections against all forms of discrimination in the workplace to
all contractors, subcontractors, vendors, consultants, or others providing
services; and against all forms of discriminatory harassment to domestic
workers.
• Employers are prohibited from mandating arbitration to resolve cases of
discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
• The law increases the power of the Attorney General to enforce the Human
Rights Law
• All employers are required to adopt a sexual harassment prevention policy and
provide training on the same.
• All State contractors must submit an affirmation that they have a sexual
harassment policy and that they provide annual training to all of their
employees.

More information, including the effective dates of these statutory reforms, may be found
via the New York State Division of Human Rights.2

2
https://dhr.ny.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/nysdhr-sexual-harassment.pdf and dhr.ny.gov/sexualharassment
5
 In 2018, New York State enacted Labor Law section 201-g requiring every public and
private employer to adopt a sexual harassment prevention policy, provide the written policy to all
employees at the time of hiring and annually thereafter, and provide annual sexual harassment
training to all employees. All employers were also required to train current employees by
October 9, 2019. This law further requires that the New York State Department of Labor, in
consultation with the New York State Division of Human Rights, create and publish a model
sexual harassment prevention policy and training program to be utilized by employers in order to
meet the minimum statutory requirements. The sexual harassment model policy, complaint
form, and training materials can be publicly accessed through the websites of the New York
State Department of Labor and New York State Division of Human Rights.3

On August 23, 2018, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued Executive Order 187, which
assigns to the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations responsibility for investigating all sexual
harassment allegations filed by employees, contractors, interns, or other identified State
employees. The purpose of this executive order is to “promote the effective, complete and
timely investigation of complaints of employment-related protected class discrimination.” This
order became effective December 1, 2018. The Governor’s Office of Employee Relations has a
formalized investigative process that it utilizes for sexual harassment complaints made against
State employees.

Moreover, New York State Public Officers Law section 74, entitled Code of Ethics,
provides in pertinent part:

An officer or employee of a state agency . . . should endeavor to pursue a course

of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely
to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.

Additionally, New York State Executive Law 4-A authorizes the Inspector General to
“receive and investigate complaints from any source, or upon his or her own initiative,
concerning allegations of corruption, fraud, criminal activity, conflicts of interest or abuse in any
covered agency.” The Inspector General also has authority to determine if the allegations
warrant “disciplinary action, civil or criminal prosecution, or further investigation by an
appropriate federal, state or local agency . . . and to assist in such investigations.”

3
www.ny.gov/programs/combating-sexual-harassment-workplace
6
 As detailed at the end of this report, there are established mechanisms for reporting
sexual harassment by state employees in New York State:

• Individuals who believe they have been subjected to sexual harassment by a

state employee may contact the employee’s supervisor and/or their agency’s
affirmative action officer (AAO). AAOs report directly to the Governor’s
Office of Employee Relations (GOER), which is responsible for conducting
investigations of all employment-related discrimination complaints. GOER
conducts internal administrative investigations of complaints filed by
employees, contractors, interns and other persons engaged in employment at
these agencies and departments concerning discrimination, retaliation and
harassment under federal and New York State law, Executive Orders and
policies of the State of New York.
• Concurrently, individuals may also contact the New York State Division of
Human Rights (DHR), which investigates discrimination complaints to
determine if the violation(s) occurred and there is probable cause.
• Sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation may also constitute violations
of the Public Officers Law under the Joint Commission on Public Ethic’s
(JCOPE) jurisdiction.
• The New York State Offices of the Inspector General will continue to receive
and investigate complaints regarding sexual harassment in state government.

The Committee on Open Government and Former Executive Director Robert Freeman
The Committee on Open Government (Committee), which was established by New York
State Public Officers Law section 89, consists of 10 members and a chair and is housed within
the New York State Department of State. Its members are required to meet at least twice
annually. Notably, the Committee’s website does not contain a list of its current members or
meeting minutes; only an outdated list of members can be found on the cover page of a 2018
annual report.

The Committee is charged with overseeing and advising the government, public, and
news media on matters related to New York’s Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law
Article 6), the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law Article 7), and the Personal Privacy
Protection Law (Public Officers Law Article 6-A). New York’s Freedom of Information Law
7
provides public access to government records, Open Meetings Law ensures the public’s right to
attend meetings of public bodies, and Personal Privacy Protection Law regulates the collection
and dissemination of personal information collected and maintained by State agencies.

The Committee also frequently offers guidance in response to inquiries from members of
the media, public, and government via telephone conversations, email correspondence, training
sessions, public presentations, and legal advisory opinions. In addition, the Committee issues an
annual report to the Governor and State legislature summarizing its yearly activities and making
recommendations to improve open government laws. According to its latest annual report, the
Committee responded in calendar year 2018 to approximately 3,423 telephone inquiries,
prepared 1,628 responses to written inquiries, issued 94 advisory opinions, and conducted 77
presentations.

Although the Committee’s enabling statute does not contain language describing the
appointment of an executive director or others, the Committee’s daily operations are performed
by an executive director along with an assistant director and administrative assistant. Moreover,
the Committee has no policy identifying the individual responsible for supervising or
disciplining the Committee’s executive director. Of note, there have been no significant changes
to the makeup or oversight of the Committee’s operating structure since its inception the 1970s.

Robert Freeman worked for the Committee since its inception in 1974 and served as its
executive director from 1976 to 2019, when he was terminated as a result of this investigation.4

As its long-tenured executive director, Freeman was the face and voice of the Committee.
Freeman frequently presented at conferences, was interviewed by the media, issued legal
advisory opinions, and responded to telephone and email inquiries. He served at the pleasure of
seven New York State governors. Over the decades, he became a respected and vocal proponent
for open government that reporters and government employees greatly relied upon. Reporters
became so familiar with Freeman that they would often ask to speak directly with him when
calling the Committee for information or a source for an article. In effect, he held himself out as
the premier authority on government transparency issues and became an invaluable resource for
the media.

4
Effective April 28, 2012, Freeman, who was then earning an annual salary of approximately $121,000, retired from
his position as the Committee’s executive director, became eligible to collect his pension, and was rehired on May 3,
2012, into the same position at an annual salary of $40,234.
8
 Freeman also was given great autonomy and deference in his position. He established his
own schedule and frequently traveled throughout New York State speaking to varying audiences.
He also occasionally traveled internationally on official business, including an honorarium trip to
Ghana in 2017 to speak at a conference. Freeman was also known to lecture delegates from
other countries who came to New York to learn about how state government functions and its
level of transparency.

In 1993, a newspaper publisher sent a handwritten letter to the secretary of state stating,
“Bob Freeman is a man/God. As far as our industry is concerned, he is the single most valuable
state employee . . . .” In this investigation, a newspaper editor told the Inspector General that its
reporters relied on Freeman so frequently that he was most likely quoted each day by the
newspaper.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION OF ROBERT FREEMAN’S

MISCONDUCT
Review of Prior Sexual Harassment Investigations by the Department of State
The Inspector General reviewed the Department of State’s 2013 investigation of prior
complaints made against Freeman and found that contrary to his public persona, Freeman’s
actions toward numerous women were habitually inappropriate throughout the years. The
investigation, conducted by the Department of State, included information related to a 2003
incident as well as incidents involving four other individuals in 2013.

According to Department of State records, in 2003, a female department employee

alleged that Freeman kissed her on her cheek when they met in a hotel lobby during an overnight
business trip. The coworker reported this encounter to her supervisor explaining that she felt
uncomfortable about Freeman’s conduct and his invitation to her to attend dinner with him that
evening. When questioned by the department’s affirmative action officer and deputy secretary of
state about his conduct in 2003, Freeman admitted to kissing the coworker but claimed it was his
manner of greeting her. Freeman was verbally admonished that this behavior was inappropriate,
and he should not engage in this type of behavior in the future.

Nonetheless, in 2013, over the course of two months, two supervisors and an employee
separately informed the affirmative action officer of Freeman’s inappropriate conduct toward
women. Notably, one supervisor personally witnessed one such encounter and took it upon
herself to advise the affirmative action officer. Another supervisor learned of Freeman’s alleged

9
wrongdoing during an informal conversation with two coworkers and appropriately reported his
conduct to the affirmative action officer. And one employee sought advice from the affirmative
action regarding Freeman’s uncomfortable interactions with her. Although the women stated at
that time they were reluctant to file formal complaints against Freeman, the affirmative action
officer filed a formal complaint on their behalf and commenced an investigation on his own
initiative.

One female Department of State employee, whose work location was in close proximity
to Freeman’s, alleged that Freeman sat on her desk and, while very close to her, looked at her
“up and down in a gross way.” According to the female employee, when she backed away from
her desk, Freeman did not seem to get the hint. The employee’s supervisor witnessed this
activity and reported it to the affirmative action officer, stating that it appeared Freeman was
attempting to look down the employee’s blouse. The supervisor advised the employee to
immediately notify her if anything further occurred with Freeman. The employee informed the
Inspector General that after the conduct was reported, Freeman left her alone.

Around the same time, a second woman, a State employee, informed the affirmative
action officer that Freeman frequently stood uncomfortably close to her and made comments
about her being “cute” and “attractive.” This employee reported backing away from Freeman
and placing documents in front of her or opening her desk drawer to keep him out of her personal
space. While these efforts did not deter Freeman’s actions, the employee conveyed to the
affirmative action officer at that time that she could manage his behavior on her own and did not
want to pursue the complaint any further.

Also around this time, a supervisor of two other women employed by the Department of
State advised the affirmative action officer that Freeman had acted inappropriately toward them.
According to Department of State records, the two employees told their supervisor they felt
Freeman did not respect their personal space and described Freeman running his hand/palm
along their arms/shoulders, making thrusting movements with his pelvic area in close proximity
to them, and asking whether the women worked out. He also emailed one of the women and
asked her to accompany him on a walk. Both employees told the Inspector General that they
declined to file a complaint or cooperate with the agency’s investigation at the time and dealt
with the situation by avoiding further contact with Freeman. The two employees advised the
Inspector General that at the time, they lacked confidence in the Department of State’s internal

10
investigative processes because they felt that a previous sexual harassment complaint against
another employee had been mishandled.5

Despite the unwillingness of the four employees to file formal complaints or cooperate
with an investigation, the affirmative action officer took it upon himself to file a formal
complaint against Freeman given the circumstances—four similar but separate incidents arising
within one month. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted in which nine witnesses were
interviewed by an agency associate counsel concerning their interactions with Freeman,
including some witnesses being interviewed multiple times.

On September 10, 2013, as a result of the affirmative action officer’s complaint and the
ensuing investigation, the Department of State’s then executive deputy secretary issued Freeman
a written counseling memorandum. This counseling memorandum, in part, read:

During our meeting on September 10, 2013, you were told that the following
conduct is or could be perceived as offensive and could potentially violate the
Department’s policy contained in ‘The Prevention of Sexual Harassment’ by:
1. Standing too close;
2. Looking female employees ‘up and down;’
3. Making comments about how a person looks, such as stating that
someone is ‘cute’ and commenting on a person’s clothing;
4. Touching the arm or shoulder of someone while in conversation; and
5. Asking employees if they work out.

The memorandum directed Freeman to immediately stop engaging in this conduct.

Further, Freeman was directed to attend additional sexual harassment prevention and equal
employment opportunity training with the director of training at the Governor’s Office of
Employee Relations, which he did. According to the counseling memorandum, Freeman was
“also provided with another copy of ‘The Prevention of Sexual Harassment’ and informed that
failure to adhere to this policy, the conditions of this memorandum, or the development of
related issues will lead to more serious corrective action up to and including termination.”
Freeman signed the memorandum, indicating that he understood what was expected of him.

The investigation also recognized that “Freeman’s admitted actions toward female
employees could create a hostile work environment if not properly addressed.” To avoid this
scenario, the Department of State informed the complainants of the outcome of the investigation

5
The employee they referred to has since retired from State service.
11
and directed the affirmative action officer to “periodically follow-up with complainants to
encourage them to alert the Department of any future behaviors by Mr. Freeman that they believe
are inappropriate, may make them feel uncomfortable, or that they might consider to be
retaliatory in nature.” No further misconduct toward these complainants was reported to the
affirmative action officer.

News Director’s 2015 Letter to Freeman and Department of State’s Failure to Act
The Inspector General’s investigation uncovered that in 2015, a letter was sent to
Freeman from a news director. This letter, as shown below, described an inappropriate
conversation Freeman had with a reporter at the newspaper during a work-related telephone call.

12
 The Inspector General’s investigation determined that when this letter was received by
the Committee in 2015, a coworker, pursuant to regular practice, opened the envelope and
reviewed the letter. Since the coworker was aware of Freeman’s prior inappropriate conduct
with women in the office, the coworker not only forwarded the letter to Freeman but also
delivered a copy of the letter to the Department of State’s then-director of the Human Resources
Office. According to the coworker, when she later inquired with the then-director of the Human
Resources Office, she was told there would be no action taken.

The Inspector General interviewed the former director of the Human Resources Office,
who stated that he did not recall how or from whom he received the letter. The former director,
who maintained a copy of the letter in a file, was also not aware of any action taken as a result of
the letter. The female reporter referenced in the letter was also interviewed by the Inspector
General and advised she and the writer of the letter were unaware of any further action taken as a
result of the letter.

2019 Sexual Harassment Complaint Involving Robert Freeman

On June 13, 2019, a female newspaper reporter utilized the Inspector General’s online
complaint form to submit allegations that she had been “sexually assaulted” by Freeman while
meeting with him in his official capacity on May 23, 2019. The reporter’s detailed written
complaint described unwanted physical contact by Freeman, including squeezing her shoulder,
putting his arm on her waist, touching her buttocks with his hand, placing her braids behind her
shoulder, hugging her, and kissing her during this work meeting. The Inspector General
contacted the reporter on June 14, 2019 and conducted a sworn interview with her on June 18,
2019.

During this interview, the Inspector General found the reporter to be credible and
consistent. She testified that while working on a story that involved the Freedom of Information
Law and Open Meetings Law, her supervisor, an editor at the newspaper, suggested she contact
Freeman to learn more about the law and potential violations that were the subject of her
reporting. After an email introduction by the editor, the reporter contacted Freeman by telephone
on May 8, 2019.

According to the reporter, in this conversation, Freeman was helpful in answering her
questions, but also spoke of personal and unrelated matters for approximately 30 minutes.
Freeman made comments to the reporter about her youth and looks and claimed to be viewing an
13
online photograph of her as they talked. Freeman also stated that he was going to be in the
reporter’s area soon for a lecture and offered to meet her for follow-up questions. The reporter
hesitantly suggested she would check her schedule and get back to him. The reporter explained
to the Inspector General that at the time she had no intention or need to meet with Freeman but
did not want to be rude to him on the telephone.

To her astonishment, on Friday, May 17, 2019, Freeman sent her an email asking if she
was planning to meet him prior to and near the site of his lecture. The reporter stated that by that
date, Open Meetings Law issues had arisen in the story she was working on that warranted
follow-up questions for Freeman, and she agreed to meet him on May 23, 2019. Freeman
suggested meeting at a diner previously unknown to the reporter. The complainant explained
that it is common for reporters to meet sources at public places to obtain information.

On May 23, 2019, at approximately 11 a.m., the reporter met with Freeman at the diner.
This was and has been her only physical encounter with Freeman. After entering the diner,
Freeman greeted the reporter with a hug and the two proceeded to sit at a booth and order coffee.
The reporter testified, “And then it went downhill from there.” According to the reporter,
Freeman said, “You look very beautiful. . . You look better than you do in pictures. And you
look very pretty in pictures.”

Freeman then asked the reporter personal questions about her family, education,
employment, and if she had a boyfriend. The reporter recalled Freeman telling her, “It’s so easy
for females to be journalists because everyone wants to talk to girls.” Also, according to the
complainant, Freeman told her that as reporter, “people probably don’t trust you because, let’s
face it, you’re black.” Further, Freeman bragged about his family, salary, and work stature,
commenting that he is his own boss and there is “no one above him.”

During the entirety of this conversation, the reporter testified, Freeman “just kept looking
down at my chest.” Freeman eventually answered the reporter’s questions related to the Open
Meetings Law and then excused himself to go to the restroom. On his way to and from the
restroom, Freeman deliberately passed by and squeezed the reporter’s shoulder, even though the
restroom was in the opposite direction.

According to the reporter, Freeman then asked her if she wanted to take a walk around
the outside of the diner to get some fresh air—an offer she summarily declined. Upon exiting the
diner, the reporter testified, Freeman placed his hand on her waist. Once outside, Freeman told
14
the reporter that he liked her long braids. He then used his hand to move her braids out of her
face and put them behind her shoulder. At this point, the reporter said, she attempted to move
away from Freeman, but he continued moving toward her.

The reporter further testified that Freeman then asked her if she wanted to see his vehicle,
a minivan, which was parked near her car. As the two proceeded down the sidewalk, Freeman
again placed his hand on the reporter’s waist and then moved it down to her buttocks. In
response, the reporter instinctively “jumped forward,” and in doing so, removed his hand from
her buttocks.

In a panic, the reporter stated, she started walking toward her car. She described her
hands shaking as she tried to unlock the door to her car. The reporter testified that Freeman, who
had followed her to her car, hugged her, placed his hands on both sides of her head, and kissed
her on her cheek, “close enough to my mouth to where I felt his like mustache like on me.” The
reporter testified that she entered her car and immediately drove away toward her office, upset.6

That afternoon, the reporter texted her editor, “I had one of the most uncomfortable
meeting[s] with Freeman. He was extremely inappropriate with me and did some very not okay
things and disrespected me.”

After later speaking with the reporter, the editor alerted the newspaper’s management and
the matter was referred to its human resources department. According to the reporter, on June
13, 2019, the human resources department advised her it could not take action against Freeman
because he was not an employee. However, it provided the reporter with information about the
Offices of the New York State Inspector General and informed her of the option to report the
incident to local police. Although hesitant and skeptical, the reporter said, later that evening she
filed a written complaint with the Inspector General. This complaint led to the instant
investigation.

During her interview with the Inspector General, the reporter testified, “I’m sure Robert
[Freeman] has done this worse in the past.” Although she was unaware of any other individuals
who had similar encounters with Freeman, she stated she believed his actions toward her during
the diner meeting were too calculated to be a singular occurrence. She described the uneven

6
On June 18, 2019, immediately after interviewing the reporter about her complaint, the Inspector General
attempted to obtain video surveillance footage from the diner. However, the Inspector General determined the diner
only maintained less than one week of data in its system and footage from May 23, 2019 had been overwritten.
15
dynamic he created by devaluing her race and gender while boasting about his State salary and
professional stature. She testified:

[I]n hindsight, it was like the perfect setup . . . it was perfect. You set up this power
move, you answer the questions she actually wants so she can’t say that she came
here for no reason, and then you like kind of go for the kill and see what you can
get away with. And it was just too organized, and then the walk, I just can’t stop
thinking about the walk around. It was just too organized for me to believe that he
hasn’t successfully done this in the past because like, you’re not just going to wake
up at 72 [years old] and just be like, ‘Let me assault . . . this journalist that’s been
at the job for two months,’ casually. . . I don’t think that happens.

The Inspector General’s investigation would reveal the reporter’s suspicions were valid.

The Inspector General also immediately contacted a local Police Department and a
prosecutorial authority. The reporter also separately contacted the local Police Department.

Thereafter, in a covertly recorded telephone call placed at the direction of the Police
Department, the reporter contacted Freeman. During a 3½ minute conversation, the reporter
confronted Freeman about his inappropriate behavior during their meeting. Their exchange, in
part, is as follows:

Reporter: I think you were very inappropriate during our meeting.

Freeman: I’m sorry you feel that way. I thought that we were just being
friendly.
Reporter: Um, like the, like the shoulder grab? And the waist grab?
Freeman: I’m sorry.
Reporter: And then, when you . . .
Freeman: Certainly, there was no intent.
Reporter: . . . when you kissed me at the end, it was like not, not good.
Freeman: I’m sorry. I’m sorry that you feel that way and I apologize.
Certainly, there was no intent to make you feel uncomfortable. I’m sorry.
And if I can help you in any way in the future, I’ve said this to you, I’d be
happy to do so.
Reporter: Um, I mean, I, I don’t, I don’t think I need your help in the future,
but, um, I just . . . .
Freeman: Okay, again, there was no, no intent of any sort. I’m sorry.
Reporter: Why, why did you touch me? I know, I know, I don’t get it.
Freeman: I, I can’t really answer that question. It seems to me that
sometimes that is simply part of ah, routine social interactions.

16
 Reporter: But you touched like my waist and like you touched my butt when
we turned the corner.
Freeman: I did? Well if I did, if I did, I’m, if I did, again, it was
unintentional. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.
Reporter: And then when you asked me to take a walk around the diner, the
outside, I, I felt like I don’t know why you asked that either, or why . . .
Freeman: I was showing you my car and you were going to yours; I think.
Well, I apologize and as I said, I’m, I’m, it’s five o’clock on a Friday and I’m
heading home, if you don’t mind. All right, good luck to you. I apologize.

During this telephone call, Freeman never denied any of the reporter’s allegations.

Sexually Suggestive Emails and Photographs on Freeman’s Work Computer

In reviewing files on Freeman’s State computer and his email and internet usage, the
Inspector General uncovered a series of sexually suggestive email messages and inappropriate
images. The Inspector General found that in October 2018, Freeman met a foreign female
university student while he was presenting to her class as part of his official duties. Emails
reveal that shortly after meeting, the two continued to engage in a personal relationship utilizing
Freeman’s State email account to correspond. Their email exchanges, which occurred as
recently as June 2019, include sexual intimations as well as several sexually provocative
photographic images the woman emailed to Freeman. In one exchange, the woman sent
Freeman a photograph of herself clad only in a towel. Freeman emailed her, “Why is the towel
wrapped around? I think it should be removed!” She then proceeded to send him a photo of
herself wearing just underwear with her hand covering her breasts. She also emailed him a photo
of herself posing nude in front of a bed and massage table.

Other examples of inappropriate messages from Freeman via his State email account to
the woman, a foreign female university student, include:

***

17
 ***

***

Additionally, the Inspector General’s forensic analysis of Freeman’s work computer

revealed several image files of naked women and hundreds of image files depicting scantily clad
women, all files likely obtained through the internet. An employee of the New York State Office
of Information Technology Services, which is responsible for the Committee on Open
Government’s computer systems, stated that she observed images of nude women and a
gambling website on Freeman’s State computer in 2008 or 2009. The employee stated that she
immediately advised her supervisor of this incident, but he was dismissive of her concern. The
supervisor advised the Inspector General that he did not recall this exchange.

Moreover, the Office of Information Technology Services advised the Inspector General
that Freeman’s work computer was often reimaged—all software was removed and reinstalled—
up to twice each year because its operating system had become plagued with viruses and other
malicious software with a suspicious frequency. Although such viruses can be indicative of
improper computer and internet usage and subject the computer network to vulnerabilities, the
Office of Information Technology Services did not report this concern to the Department of
State. In fact, the Office of Information Technology Services advised the Inspector General that
it does not have a policy addressing how its staff should handle the discovery of suspicious
activity or inappropriate files on State computers.

Freeman’s Response to the Allegations

The Inspector General interviewed Freeman under oath on June 24, 2019. Freeman
repeatedly claimed he “did not recall” specific interactions with the reporter in the recorded
telephone conversation referenced above. As for his meeting with the reporter at the diner,
18
Freeman claimed it was “all business.” Freeman testified he did not recall touching the
complainant’s shoulder, but stated, “Maybe I touched her shoulder. I don’t remember. I don’t
remember . . . . I’m not going to say it didn’t happen. Maybe it did. Maybe it did.” When
questioned if he touched the complainant’s back upon exiting the diner, Freeman stated, “No. I
don’t recall any of it. I don’t recall any of it, in terms of other than maybe shaking hands before
and at the end.” When confronted about touching the complainant’s buttocks, Freeman stated,
“Certainly not. Certainly not. It’s not something that I do.” When asked if he recalled kissing
the complainant, Freeman initially stated, “I do not.” He later admitted, “I probably did, I think I
did at the end of our meeting. Yes.” During this interview, Freeman denied meeting alone with
any other female reporters and kissing or touching them.

When questioned about the woman with whom he exchanged emails on his State
computer and received several sexually provocative photographic images from, Freeman stated
he knew little about her but that they had become friends. Freeman advised that the two
corresponded almost daily during his work hours. When shown a photograph that this woman
had emailed to Freeman that depicted her posing nude in front of a bed and massage table,
Freeman testified, “I think I’m being civil and pleasant . . . It’s almost like ordinary, civil kind of
communication. And, you know, the reality is that when somebody is 8,000 miles away, it’s
safe. . . . It’s not like communicating with somebody who is down the hall. Completely
different.” Nonetheless, Freeman told the Inspector General, “You’ve given me fair warning and
all I can say is that I will be good from this moment forward. It’s the last of my communication
with [this individual], I guess.” Freeman also admitted, “I don’t want anybody to find out about
it . . . I go back and I delete. . . . I delete a lot of things.”

During this interview, Freeman confirmed that he was counseled in 2013 for
inappropriate conduct towards women in the workplace and had attended additional sexual
harassment training as directed. However, Freeman was dismissive of the 2013 allegations
claiming, “It involved the reality that sometimes I look at people. And some people these days
don’t like that.” Freeman also attempted to rationalize his behavior in 2013 stating, “To be
honest with you, I don’t know at this point where the line is drawn. . . . It’s a different time. It’s
a different era. . . . I like to think that I learned a lesson from that. I am very cautious.” Despite
this claim, Freeman proceeded to admit to the Inspector General that he repeatedly engaged in
inappropriate conduct toward women in the workplace.

19
 Freeman also admitted to the Inspector General utilizing his State computer to
intentionally search the internet for photographs of women in underwear and lingerie. This
activity resulted in large numbers of such image files being stored on his computer. Freeman
advised, “[T]hey are clothed in a way that does not leave a great deal to the imagination, but
they’re not naked. I don’t think we can get to sites with naked women in this State.” “If they
were naked . . . it was by happenstance.”

Freeman also admitted to regularly looking at internet photos of people he was speaking
to, as had been reported by the complainant. Freeman specified, “If I was talking to you, I might
Google you.”

On June 24, 2019, the Inspector General sent a letter to the Secretary of State
summarizing the above findings and recommended that the Department of State take immediate
disciplinary action as it deemed appropriate. Freeman was terminated the same day.

THE AFTERMATH OF ROBERT FREEMAN’S TERMINATION

Numerous Additional Complainants Come Forward
In the days after Freeman’s termination, numerous allegations surfaced involving
members of the media as well as State and local government employees. Several newspapers
published reporters’ and other individuals’ recollections of their uncomfortable encounters with
Freeman that sounded disconcertingly familiar. The following are excerpts from several such
articles7:

***

7
Laura Nahmias, Opinion, The open secret about the secret-opener: How Bob Freeman treated women, New York
Daily News, June 25, 2019 https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-bob-freeman-20190625-
zn6ibryhsnaublx5acnzncwsde-story.html; Jon Campbell, Joseph Spector, and Meaghan M. McDermott, Multiple
women claim harassment by Robert Freeman, the prominent NY open-government expert, lohud.com, June 27,
2019, updated July 8, 2019, https://www.lohud.com/story/news/2019/06/27/sexual-harassment-details-robert-
freeman-open-government-expert/1561274001/; Chris Bragg, Transparency official fired over sexually
inappropriate behavior, Times Union, June 25, 2019, https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Transparency-
watchdog-Robert-Freeman-fired-over-14043829.php; and Tcholakian, Danielle, News Men’s ‘Flirty Business’ Is
Awful for Women Reporters, Daily Beast, December 3, 2017, https://www.thedailybeast.com/news-mens-flirty-
business-is-awful-for-women-reporters.
20
 ***

***

***

***

The Inspector General also received additional allegations through its complaint hotline.
The Inspector General made attempts to speak with each identifiable complainant.

21
 After speaking to more than 14 complainants, a common thread emerged. Freeman was
repeatedly described as a venerable figure and the authority on transparency and open access to
public records. He regularly claimed he reported to no one and would never be fired by the
State, believing he positioned himself in such a way that there would be significant news media
outcry if he was ever terminated. Freeman also regularly engaged women in the workplace in
uncomfortable personal conversations concerning their love life and physical appearance as well
as bragging about his salary and perceived power while staring at their chests or viewing
photographs of the women on the internet. Many of the women were young or new reporters
whose male supervisors suggested they contact Freeman as a valuable source of information.

Moreover, repeated witnesses described uncomfortable, long-lasting “bear hugs,” his

hands touching the small of their backs, and him kissing their cheeks, often during their first
encounter. Multiple witnesses also described Freeman placing his hand on his hips and thrusting
his pelvic area toward them as he spoke. The investigation also found that Freeman was known
for taking lunchtime walks at Albany’s Empire State Plaza and downtown area. During these
walks, he was often observed ogling women’s chests as they passed. Multiple women the
Inspector General spoke with described Freeman inviting them on these lunchtime walks.

For example, one State employee reported to the Inspector General that although she had
never met Freeman before, he approached her during a lunchtime walk, grabbed her State
identification from her chest, and informed her that he knew an attorney who worked in her
office. He then requested she walk with him, which she declined. According to this woman, she
informed the attorney in her office of her uncomfortable encounter with Freeman, but he
shrugged the matter off. Freeman later attempted to contact her at work, claiming he found her
telephone number in a State employee directory. Subsequently, whenever Freeman saw this
woman in downtown Albany, he persistently asked her to walk with him and attempted to hug
her.

Freeman’s behavior was so bewildering to this woman that she often returned to work
distressed by her lunchtime interaction with him. According to this woman, Freeman’s behavior
escalated over time such that on one occasion, Freeman walked up behind her on the concourse
level of the Empire State Plaza, grabbed her from behind, and pressed his genital area against her
backside. Startled, she said, she immediately told him to get off her and insisted that he needed

22
to get help. Although she mentioned this encounter to a coworker, she did not notify her
supervisor or file a complaint.

Following his termination, the Inspector General interviewed Freeman’s former

subordinates, two women, who advised they were unaware of any inappropriate activity by
Freeman.

Media’s Continued Reliance on Freeman Despite Knowing of His Behavior

The Inspector General’s investigation found that leadership at certain news media outlets
continued to engage Freeman despite knowledge of his inappropriate behavior toward young
female reporters.

For example, after Freeman was terminated, one female newspaper reporter explained to
the Inspector General that in May 2017, during her first meeting with Freeman, he lured her into
taking a walk with him based on the promise of journalistic leads. However, during this 1½ hour
walk, Freeman refused to talk about any information of value, and instead asked the reporter
personal questions and commented about her physical appearance. According to this reporter,
Freeman also gave her a hug and a “big, sloppy, wet kiss on the cheek” as they were parting
ways. Although the reporter did not confront Freeman at the time, she advised the Inspector
General that she felt she had walked with Freeman under false pretenses, he treated the walk as if
it were a personal date, and he did not respect her as a professional. Strangely, Freeman
subsequently sent this reporter a video of a member of his family and called the reporter’s
cellular telephone “just to chat” in the weeks following this encounter. From that point forward,
the reporter chose to avoid Freeman.

However, in Spring 2019, while working at Albany-based newspaper, the reporter

learned that Freeman had been invited to be a guest speaker at a presentation hosted by her new
employer. The reporter informed two male editors about her prior unnerving encounter with
Freeman and advised that based on that experience, she felt it was unsafe for women to be alone
with Freeman. Despite her concerns, the newspaper declined to cancel Freeman’s presentation,
opting instead to verbally warn women attending the presentation not to meet with Freeman
alone. The reporter stated to the Inspector General that at that time, she felt this was a
proportional response and agreed with it. However, as detailed below, the newspaper’s verbal
warning was not communicated to all women who attended the presentation.

23
 A second young female reporter informed the Inspector General that she attended
Freeman’s presentation but had not been warned about Freeman’s conduct. When the second
reporter entered the presentation room, most seats had already been taken by others and she was
limited to choosing a seat in the front of the room near Freeman. According to the second
reporter, during the presentation, Freeman stood very close to her and, with his hands on his hips,
repeatedly moved his pelvic area, which was at the seated reporter’s eye level. The second
reporter advised the Inspector General that she was made very uncomfortable by Freeman’s
actions, which were within her personal space. Freeman’s conduct was evidently noticed by the
person seated next to the second reporter, who moved her own chair backwards so the second
reporter could move her chair farther away from Freeman. Despite this, Freeman’s actions did
not cease. After the presentation, coworkers expressed their astonishment to this reporter about
Freeman’s obvious inappropriate behavior toward her during the presentation. Nonetheless,
despite these two known incidents of Freeman engaging in blatantly inappropriate and
unprofessional behavior, no efforts were made by this newspaper’s management to notify or file
a complaint with a State entity about Freeman’s transgressions. Nor are there any records of the
newspaper admonishing or reprimanding Freeman for his actions.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Inspector General found that Freeman habitually engaged in sexual harassment of
multiple women over many years. By leveraging his unique position as the executive director of
the Committee on Open Government to gain access to women in the workplace, Freeman
breached the public’s trust. Through a common course of conduct, Freeman created a power
dynamic that made his targets believe that reporting his behavior would be futile or would have
negative professional repercussions. His conduct was widespread, including women from the
news media, and State, and municipal governments.

Many women described finding their own methods to handling Freeman’s unwanted
contact over the years, such as avoiding him completely, limiting interactions with him to
telephone only, or being accompanied by others when it was absolutely necessary to encounter
him in person.

Although his inappropriate behavior appears to have been rampant, many women
reported they were either not aware of his similar conduct toward others, feared professional
ramifications if they reported his conduct, or did not view the conduct as rising to the level of a
24
reportable offense. Others expressed confusion and said they were unaware of where and how to
file a complaint against Freeman because they were either not State employees or worked for a
different agency than Freeman. This confusion was compounded by the fact that Freeman
appeared to have no supervisor.

Several private sector witnesses also described having never received sexual harassment
training or only recently receiving such training as a result of New York State Labor Law section
201-g, which requires every public and private employer to adopt a sexual harassment prevention
policy, provide the written policy to all employees at the time of hiring and annually thereafter,
and provide annual sexual harassment training to all of its employees by October 9, 2019.

The Inspector General also found that the Department of State’s affirmative action officer
in 2013 acted appropriately by filing a complaint, especially given the repeated and consistent
nature of the allegations. The Department of State also handled the complaint appropriately by
conducting an investigation, counseling Freeman, and documenting the matter despite some
complainants understandably not cooperating with the investigation at the time.

To the contrary, the 2015 letter to Freeman from a newspaper’s news director should
have been investigated by the Department of State’s then-human resources director or referred to
the affirmative action officer for further action. By failing to do so, the Department of State
missed an opportunity to address Freeman’s continued misconduct.

This investigation also found that many reporters and editors tolerated Freeman’s
misconduct because, in part, he was a consistent and reliable source for the news media who
made himself seemingly invaluable to aspects of their work. Prior to Freeman’s termination, the
only documented complaints from the news media were the 2015 letter from a news director that
was sent directly to Freeman and the formal complaint filed with the Inspector General in June
2019. But for this most recent complainant, Freeman’s conduct may have continued unabated.

On June 24, 2019, the Inspector General forwarded the findings of its investigation to the
Department of State and recommended that Freeman’s actions and behavior warrant disciplinary
action, including, but not limited to, termination. The Department of State terminated Freeman
immediately upon learning of the Inspector General’s findings. In addition, the matter was
referred to prosecutorial authorities.

25
 Related to the issues highlighted in this report with regard to Freeman’s abhorrent
actions, behavior, and projected sense of being “untouchable,” the Inspector General’s
investigation finds that there is a lack of established oversight and supervision for the
Committee’s executive director. As previously stated, Freeman repeatedly indicated that he
answered to no one throughout the course of his tenure.8 This autonomy enabled Freeman to
perpetuate the conduct in which he engaged. The Inspector General recommends implementation
of a clear supervisory and reporting structure for Freeman’s successor(s). In addition, the
Inspector General found that the Committee’s current members are not posted on its website.
For purposes of transparency and accountability, the Inspector General recommends that the
Committee address this deficiency.

The Inspector General also recommends that employers, both public and private,
disseminate and clarify sexual harassment reporting options involving a State actor—especially
in light of recently enacted New York State Labor Law section 201-g. In the event State
employees encounter sexual harassment related to their employment, they should contact their
agency’s affirmative action officer, who, pursuant to Executive Order 187, reports to the
Governor’s Office of Employee Relations, an entity independent from the employee’s agency. If
a private sector complainant is unsure where to file a complaint against a State actor, the
Inspector General will continue to receive such complaints to handle or refer to the appropriate
entity.

Additionally, the Inspector General found that employees of the New York State Office
of Information Technology Services were aware of improper and suspicious activity by Freeman
with respect to his Department of State computer, email and internet resources but failed to act.
This failure to appropriately respond to computer-related concerns resulted in another missed
opportunity to derail Freeman’s misconduct. Therefore, the Inspector General recommends that
the Office of Information Technology Services promulgate policy addressing how its staff should
handle and report the discovery of suspicious activity or inappropriate files on State computers
and train its help desk staff and supervisors on the same. The Office of Information Technology
Services advised the Inspector General that it recently emailed its unit heads a draft reporting
procedure for service desk agents who discover inappropriate computer content when assisting
staff.

8
In fact, Freeman’s last performance review was in 2000.
26
 Lastly, the findings of this investigation illustrate Freeman’s continual abuse of his
official position. As such, this report was provided to the New York State Joint Commission on
Public Ethics for its review of possible violations of New York State Public Officers Law’s Code
of Conduct and provisions governing the use of State resources.

27
APPENDICES

1. Sexual Harassment Reforms in New York State

2. Filing Sexual Harassment Complaints in New York State
3. June 24, 2019 Letter from Inspector General Tagliafierro to Secretary of State
Rosado re: Preliminary Findings
4. June 25, 2019 Statement from Inspector General Tagliafierro re: Department of
State’s Termination of Freeman
5. June 28, 2019 Letter from Secretary of State Rosado to Inspector General
Tagliafierro re: Ongoing Investigation and Termination of Freeman

28
SEXUAL HARASSMENT REFORMS IN NEW YORK STATE
Sweeping new workplace harassment protections were signed into law by Governor
Andrew M. Cuomo in 2019 that strengthens New York’s anti-discrimination laws. Specifically:

• New York State’s Human Rights Law was amended to make clear that
conduct need not be “severe or pervasive” to be considered sexual harassment.
• New York State now mandates that all non-disclosure agreements in
employment contracts include language stating that employees may still file a
complaint of harassment or discrimination with a state or local agency and
testify or participate in a government investigation.
• The statute of limitations to file a sexual harassment claim with the New York
State Division of Human Rights is now three years.
• Employers must provide employees with notice about their sexual harassment
prevention policy in English as well as the employee’s primary language
• The New York State Human Rights Law now applies to all employers in the
state, providing protections against all forms of discrimination in the
workplace to all contractors, subcontractors, vendors, consultants, or others
providing services; and against all forms of discriminatory harassment to
domestic workers.
• Employers are prohibited from mandating arbitration to resolve cases of
discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
• The New York State Attorney General’s enforcement power of the Human
Rights Law has been increased.
• If the federal government rolls back rights covered in the Human Rights Law,
courts must interpret the Human Rights Law liberally in line with the state
law.
• The law increases the power of the Attorney General to enforce the Human
Rights Law
• All employers are required to adopt a sexual harassment prevention policy and
training.

29
 • All State contractors must submit an affirmation that they have a sexual
harassment policy and that they provide annual training to all of their
employees.

More information, including the effective dates of these statutory reforms, may be found
via the New York State Division of Human Rights at dhr.ny.gov/sexualharassment.

New York State also offers “Combating Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” a training
and policy guidance program on required sexual harassment prevention measures. The program
is available online at www.ny.gov/programs/combating-sexual-harassment-workplace.

30
FILING SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS IN NEW YORK STATE

Individuals who believe they have been subjected to sexual harassment by a state
employee may contact the employee’s supervisor and/or their agency’s affirmative action officer
(AAO). AAOs report directly to the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER), which,
pursuant to Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order 187 (“Ensuring Diversity and Inclusion and
Combating Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace”)9, is responsible for conducting
investigations of all employment-related discrimination complaints. GOER conducts internal
administrative investigations. These investigations include complaints filed by employees,
contractors, interns and other persons engaged in employment at these agencies and departments
concerning discrimination, retaliation and harassment under Federal and New York State law,
Executive Orders and policies of the State of New York. Questions or compliance issues
regarding Executive Order No. 187 may be sent to antidiscrimination@goer.ny.gov or by phone
at 518-474-1920.

Concurrently, individuals may also contact the New York State Division of Human
Rights (DHR), which investigates discrimination complaints to determine if the violation(s)
occurred and there is probable cause. For more information, contact DHR at (718) 741-8400 or
visit www.dhr.ny.gov.

Sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation may also constitute violations of the

Public Officers Law under the Joint Commission on Public Ethic’s (JCOPE) jurisdiction. Such
conduct may be reported via 1 (800) 873-8442 or www.jcope.ny.gov.

The New York State Offices of the Inspector General will continue to receive and
investigate complaints regarding sexual harassment in state government. Individuals may report
allegations of misconduct in state government via its website: ig.ny.gov/form/complaint-form-
long, or by writing to: New York State Offices of the Inspector General, Empire State Plaza,
Agency Building 2, 16th Floor, Albany, New York 12223. Complaints may also be faxed to
(518) 486-3745. The Inspector General’s hotline - 1 (800) 367-4448 will connect individuals
with trained staff to discuss a complaint.

9
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-187-ensuring-diversity-and-inclusion-and-combating-harassment-and-discrimination-workplace
31
32
33
34
35
36